SR-417-003-01 (9)
F:\PCD\Share\Council Reports 2000\prefwexp.doc Santa Monica, California
Council Meeting: October 10, 2000
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Staff
Subject: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Expanding Preferential Parking
Zone W and Amending City Council Resolution 9344 CCS
Introduction
This report recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution expanding Preferential
th
Parking Zone W to include 28 Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard
thth
and to include Pearl Street between 27 Street and 29 Street and amending City
Council Resolution 9344 CCS. This action requires an increase in the revenue
projection for account 01415.400290 by $2,700.
Background
th
The City of Santa Monica implemented parking regulations on the two blocks of 28
Street between Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards and on the two blocks of Pearl Street
thth
between 27 and 29 Streets when installation of traffic circles reduced the amount of
thth
parking on 28 Street. The resulting regulations on 28 Street restrict parking from
8am-9pm daily, and the parking regulations on Pearl Street restrict parking for more
than two hours from 9am-6pm Monday-Friday. When the City notified residents that the
th
traffic circles would be removed, the residents of 28 Street were advised to submit
1
additional signatures if they would like to keep preferential parking regulations
permanently.
th
The City has received signatures from 62% of the residents of 28 Street between
Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard explicitly stating that they would like the City to
th
permanently adopt preferential parking regulations. The residents of 28 Street
between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street did not submit enough additional signatures
for the City to consider extending parking regulations permanently on that block. The
thth
residents of Pearl Street between 27 Street and 29 Street had previously submitted
enough signatures to continue parking regulations permanently as preferential parking.
The majority of the neighbors agree that vehicle parking by non-residents regularly
interferes with the ability of residents to park near their homes. Staff recommends that
th
the City Council expand Zone W, which already includes 29 Street between Pearl
Street and Ocean Park Boulevard and prohibits parking ?for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.? Staff
th
recommends that these same regulations apply to Pearl Street between 27 Street and
thth
29 Street. On 28 Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard, where
residents are affected by parking demand from adjacent uses on Ocean Park
Boulevard, staff recommends ?No Parking, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except by permit.? These recommendations consolidate regulations in the area
and introduce consistency on the hours and days of regulations.
2
Discussion
It was not possible to conduct the type of parking study normally completed as part of
the preferential parking establishment process. The temporary parking restrictions have
been in effect for over a year and no data is available for parking occupancies prior to
the regulations. The street parking spaces appear adequately utilized to continue
parking regulations on a permanent basis.
The proposed regulations on Pearl Street are consistent with adjacent regulations in
Zone W; they have been in place for several years, and no residents have objected to
th
them. Although consistency with adjacent regulations is a goal, regulations on 28
Street have been different from those on Pearl Street since they were implemented as
th
a result of different neighborhood conditions. First, residents of 28 Street tend to
occupy more of the parking spaces on their street than residents of Pearl Street do.
th
The residences on 28 Street are mostly multi-family with a few single-family
residences with street parking. Patrons of commercial uses along Ocean Park
Boulevard, including a County court facility, professional offices, retail stores and a
restaurant frequently park for two hours or less, and would be unaffected by regulations
allowing two-hour parking. These short-term visitors do not appear willing to walk the
th
distance from Pearl Street or 29 Street to find free parking. The 2700 and 2800 blocks
of Pearl Street are more removed from Ocean Park Boulevard yet are still affected by
spillover parking. When the high demand for residential parking is compounded by the
high demand for business parking, the situation becomes extremely difficult for the
th
residents of 28 and Pearl Streets.
3
Comments from Businesses and Residents
Staff invited residents and businesses in the affected area to a meeting to discuss the
proposed regulations on August 7, 2000. Although businesses in the area were notified
of the proposed preferential parking regulations, City staff did not receive any
comments from neighborhood businesses. Staff did not receive any comments from
residents about the proposed regulations on Pearl Street but did receive expressions of
th
concern regarding the regulations proposed for 28 Street.
th
Regulations on 28 Street currently limit parking to residents between 9am and 9pm,
seven days a week. Some residents would like to keep these regulations. They argue
th
that vehicles destined for the restaurant at the corner of 28 Street and Ocean Park
Boulevard will continue to limit parking into the evening hours and on weekends if the
regulations are relaxed. Other residents want to limit regulations to weekday business
hours. They find evening and weekend regulations inconvenient and unnecessary,
since most of the businesses are closed on the weekends and in the evenings.
Although neighbors disagree about which regulations would be optimal, most support
continuation of some regulations.
Some residents were concerned about the way that signatures for preferential parking
were collected and counted. Because regulations were already in place, and installed
as part of a residential traffic management project which was also the subject of
community input, staff interpreted the petition requirement so that responses to a
4
survey on the traffic management project counted toward the minimum petition
requirement. This decision was made in an effort to streamline the process for a
neighborhood that had been subject to repeated petition drives, polls and community
meetings. The preferential parking petition had 145 signatures, including signatures
supporting a change in hours, at the time of the August 7 neighborhood meeting. This
represents signatures from 74% of the units on the block. Exclusive of signatures
favoring a change in regulations, residents have submitted 122 signatures representing
62% of the units on the block. The ordinance requires 67% support prior to the
initiation of a study. Neighbors in favor of preferential parking are attempting to collect
the 9 additional signatures needed to have two-thirds of the residential units
represented, without counting any of those who supported a change only, before the
Council meeting.
Staff is recommending that Council implement the preferential parking whether or not
the additional signatures are collected because the record indicates that most residents
want preferential parking on the street. The petition requirement is a threshold for
initiation of a study, and no study was required for this zone. Since parking regulations
th
went into effect on 28 Street, residents living in 19 of 196 units have expressed that
they do not want any parking regulations.
Budget/Fiscal Impact
Initially, it is estimated that approximately 180 permits will be purchased by area
residents in the proposed zone. This will generate approximately $2,700 annually in
5
additional revenue in FY 00/01 at account 01415.400290. The budget should be
amended to reflect this additional revenue. City crews will install the new preferential
parking signs.
CEQA Analysis
The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 19,
Section 15301 ( c ) which was recently amended to define Class 1 exempt projects in
the following way: "Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting,
leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities,
mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving little or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency?s determination. . ." This exemption
lists as an example of "existing facilities:" "( c ) Existing highways and streets,
sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities." Preferential
parking zones involve only the issuance of permits for the use of an existing public
street and include negligible or no expansion of this existing use.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve the attached Resolution expanding Preferential Parking Zone W to include
th
Pearl Street and 28 Street, and Amending Resolution 9344 CCS (Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Santa Monica Re-Establishing Various Preferential
Parking Zones) by replacing Exhibit A.
2. Approve the revenue budget adjustment outlined in this report.
6
Attachments:
A Resolution Establishing Preferential Parking
Exhibit A - Preferential Parking Zones
B Vicinity Map
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager
Beth Rolandson, Transportation Planning Assistant
7